£2500 1440p PC Build?

ironcreeper2004

Reputable
Oct 25, 2017
145
2
4,685
I'm looking in the £2500 price range and was wondering what my best choice would be, this includes a monitor, 1440p as I'd rather have high frames than 60 at 4k. Preferably an Nvidia GPU. Lastly, I'm looking more at the high up 1440p monitors, aka, Ultrawide. Thanks for any help given!
 
Solution
that would be about it:
CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K 3.7GHz 6-Core Processor (£403.48 @ BT Shop)
CPU Cooler: Noctua - NH-U14S 55.0 CFM CPU Cooler (£54.98 @ CCL Computers)
Motherboard: Asus - Prime Z370-A ATX LGA1151 Motherboard (£144.75 @ Amazon UK)
Memory: Corsair - Vengeance LPX 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200 Memory (£170.76 @ Alza)
Storage: Crucial - MX300 1.1TB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive (£257.34 @ Alza)
Video Card: Gigabyte - GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB OC BLACK Video Card (£688.46 @ Amazon UK)
Case: Fractal Design - Meshify C ATX Mid Tower Case (£79.99 @ Amazon UK)
Power Supply: Corsair - RMx 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply (£84.11 @ Ebuyer)
Monitor: AOC - AG352UCG 35.0" 3440x1440 100Hz Monitor (£774.97 @ Amazon UK)
Total: £2658.84

a bit over the 2500 budget, though can be fixed by one of the following:
1. switching 1080Ti to a normal 1080.
2. picking non G-Sync display
3. waiting few weeks for the black friday sale :)
 
Solution
You could also save by dropping to a 8600k. At a 100Hz or less there will be no difference. You might argue the 8700k may last a little longer before needing an upgrade. The 8700k shows its extra power when pushing the highest fps, at a 100Hz/fps it just won't be working that hard.
 
8700K vs 8600K is about 100 pounds difference.
the 8600K is "sufficient" for today. though the 8700K will serve you longer. you can be confident that it will be able to deal with any game for 4-5 years.
as for the 1080 vs 1080Ti for 3440x1440p@100Hz, the Ti will serve you longer allowing to get 100FPS in more games on higher settings for longer.
so the question is what you prefer - another couple of years without upgrade or to save 100-200 pounds today.
if you do prefer to save today, better do it with GPU. CPU upgrade usually involves MB and sometimes RAM making it quite costly.
 
I think "sufficient" doesn't do the 8600k justice. The 8600k is a great choice for high fps setup and the gap to the 8700k is not that big. If running 144Hz or greater you may see small benefits from a 8700k in todays games. Before Coffee Lake released the 7700k was the gaming king and what people recommended for high fps gaming (100Hz is not that high in my view). The 8600k equals or beats the 7700k in the reviews I have read and the gaming landscape hasn't changed. I'd say the £130 is a gamble on future proofing, I am not saying the 8700k is a bad choice, its an awesome choice but I see no hard evidence why its needed, only speculation about possible futureproofing.

In the grand scheme of your build the cost difference is 5%,you may decide to speculate on futureproofing, I just can't say if it pays off.
 
^ I can't either thus the quotes :)
the quad core i5 were excellent for gaming for few years and yet today you can clearly see the benefit of investing into quad core i7 few years back.
so it might take many years for i5-8600K to become a bottleneck. same goes for GPU. I'm just expressing a personal opinion based on a couple of decades of rational PC enthusiast. though custom loops are not really rational, but I love them :)
 
It's always good to hear another experienced opinion, your points are absolutely valid. I suppose I am just trying to give a different perspective for the OP to consider. If saving £130 is important this is where I would do it, if the cost difference is immaterial (5% of the total build cost) then why not.